Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An associate, dismissed from the law firm after five years, sought bonuses and fees with respect to cases on which he worked that settled after his departure. He filed attorney's liens in Illinois state courts. When that strategy failed, he filed in federal court. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to contract claims and claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (820 ILCS 115/2), but otherwise affirmed. No court has ever decided whether plaintiff's employment agreement entitled him to compensation for work he did on the cases at issue and he made a plausible case that the agreement entitles him to some portion of the revenues. His contract required the firm to give him 30 days' notice before terminating his employment, but it failed to do so.

In 2007, plaintiff applied for admission to the Indiana Bar. The Board of Law Examiners requested that he attend hearings to investigate his application and be evaluated by mental health professionals and ultimately denied the application. After exhausting appeals to the Indiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, plaintiff brought suit, claiming that evaluation of his application focused on his religious beliefs (ostensibly Roman Catholic) and violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and found that the defendants were immune from civil suit. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the gravamen of the claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 required review of a state court decision and could have been raised in his appeals.

The court issued an directing the attorney to show cause why she should not be subject to discipline, up to and including disbarment, for abandonment of her client in a criminal case. She ignored two previous orders directing her to explain her inaction on her client's opinion, gave incomplete responses to two others, and did not respond to final order. The Seventh Circuit concluded that the attorney is unfit to practice law, stating that abandonment of a client in a criminal case is reprehensible and ignoring orders entered by a court is inexcusable. The court ordered refund of all fees she may have been paid for handling the case.

Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination suit, alleging race discrimination and retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e. She failed to file a timely response to her employer's motion for summary judgment and the court granted the motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court was within its discretion in denying an extension. Plaintiff's counsel offered no explanation for missing the filing date by more than a month. There was no direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation; there was evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for any salary differences among workers in plaintiff's position. Plaintiff never complained to her employer that any actions taken against her by co-workers or by anyone at the company were related to race and nothing about cited incidents gave any hint that race was at issue.

Defendant pleaded guilty to transporting a minor in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution, 18 U.S.C. 2423(a) and was sentenced to 210 months' imprisonment. Appeal was dismissed on the basis of waiver in the plea agreement. Defendant filed a collateral attack within a year, arguing that his attorney had a conflict of interest, because he formerly represented one of defendant's prostitutes in a different case, and furnished ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not obtain a formal waiver of the conflict. The district court denied the petition, concluding that the record did not supply any reason to think that counsel's work on the 2003 prostitution claim would have diminished his ability to represent defendant effectively. A subsequent motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) was accompanied by more factual detail, but was denied. The Seventh Circuit affirmed denial of the petition and vacated with respect to the 60(b) motion, instructing the district court to dismiss the motion as a successive collateral attack, barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b) even though the first ruling was still pending on appeal.

Class actions charged defendant, a credit-reporting agency, with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681, by selling consumer credit information to advertisers. The actions were consolidated and settled for $75 million. Class counsel appealed approval of a settlement with members of the class who filed individual claims in state court, that allowed defendant, after paying the settlements, to be reimbursed out of the $75 million class settlement fund. The law firm (Watts) that represented the individual claimants, did nothing to create the fund out of which the settlements will be paid, but stands to receive from $10 to $15 million in attorneys’ fees out of the class settlement fund. Class counsel argued that it should receive a portion of Watts' fees on the ground that class counsel contributed to the creation of the fund. The Seventh Circuit deemed Watts' motion as one to add it as a party and granted the motion. Watts wants to be an appellee to defend its right to attorneys' fees from the fund that its clients (individual claimants) agreed to pay, according to the court, but doesn't want to be a party that could be ordered to disgorge some of the fees, should class counsel prevail.

The law firm successfully represented plaintiff in a Title VII retaliation suit against her employer. The jury awarded $65,000 in damage. The attorneys then sought attorneys' fees of 131,665.88. The district court awarded $70,000. The Seventh Circuit vacated, acknowledging concerns about excessive fees. The district court looked to impermissible considerations in calculating the award; most significantly, it reduced the statutory award based on the existence of an agreement, which specifies that the agreed contingent fee will not apply to the statutory award of fees(42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k)). The court should have provided plaintiff with an opportunity to respond before applying the Consumer Price Index and the Laffey Matrix (a chart of hourly rates for attorneys and paralegals in the Washington, D.C. area, prepared by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to be used in fee-shifting cases), and should have provided a clear explanation as to how it arrived at the hourly rate of $400. The district court also erred in reversing its award of fees to outside counsel.

The district court certified a class in a suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005), 47 U.S.C. 227. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for the court re-evaluate the gravity of class counsel’s misconduct and its implications for the likelihood that class counsel will adequately represent the class. The district court concluded that "only the most egregious misconduct" by the law firm representing the class "could ever arguably justify denial of class status." The court must weigh the firm's misleading statements and the risk that the firm is in this case purely for itself and not for the benefits that the suit if successful might confer on the class.

Plaintiff filed suit, pro se, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging arrest without probably cause and assault. The judge allowed him to proceed in forma pauperis. After plaintiff delayed in responding to a draft pretrial order, the judge imposed a sanction of $9,055 against the plaintiff and an attorney who had agreed to represent him. Plaintiff was unable to pay and the judge rejected his offer of $25 per month. When plaintiff did not pay within the 30 day period set by the court, it dismissed his suit. The Seventh Circuit reversed, noting that the fine was actually paid by the attorney after plaintiff complained to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The attorney admitted being unfamiliar with the federal rules and that he had never before filed a pretrial order.

The owner of an outdoor amphitheater in a rural area claimed that the sheriff forced him to hire off-duty deputies as a private security force for events and threatened to close the road leading to his property if he did not comply. After giving plaintiff's attorney three tries at producing a complaint that complied with Rules 8 and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing. The Seventh Circuit ordered plaintiff's attorney to show cause why he should not be suspended from the bar of the court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and directed that a copy be sent to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.